Who Dun It? A Unique Projectile Point Cache

Who Dun It?

A Unique Projectile Point Cache

By John Bradford Branney

Figure 1 - A cache of projectile points surface recovered in
Weld County, Colorado, by the late Robert A. Roth. 

 Purpose

This article documents and analyzes a cache of five projectile points surface recovered from the prairie in northeastern Colorado. The analysis provides visual evidence for the possible sources of the raw material and a proposed projectile point type for the five artifacts.

Introduction

The late Robert A. Roth of Gill, Colorado, recovered the five projectile points together in Figure 1 on the surface of private land in Weld County, Colorado, north of the South Platte River. Based on the similarity in morphology, size, and knapping technology, I suspect the same individual made all five points. Based on the fragile tips, a lack of evidence for resharpening or use wear, and the similar sizes, I surmise the prehistoric craftsman never used the artifacts. I contend that the craftsperson stashed the five projectile points for later use, or lost or abandoned them under indeterminable circumstances. Unfortunately, we will never know the answers for sure.

Raw Material Sourcing

Figure 2 - Boulders and flakes  
of stone tool material in a
prehistoric quarry northeast
of the cache discovery.   

The first thing I tackled with this project was determining the raw material the prehistoric craftsperson used to make the five projectile points. The photograph in Figure 1 illustrates that the raw material was beautiful and diverse. The craftsperson made the first three projectile points out of orthoquartzite, the fourth projectile point out of a dusky-red jasper, and the fifth projectile point out of a semi-translucent chalcedony. Those general rock types were readily available in prehistoric times throughout the Rocky Mountain region, so that did not help me much in tracking down specific sources. I wanted to know if the prehistoric craftsperson imported the material or artifacts from another area or used the available raw material within the same area as the discovery site. 

The multi-colored raw material used to make the first projectile point in Figure 1 was a real headscratcher. Having artifact hunting Weld County for four decades, I found plenty of the yellowish-orange orthoquartzite found on the proximal end of the first point. However, the moderate red hue on the distal end puzzled me. The second point from the left had the same texture and yellowish-orange hue as the distal end of the first point, so I assumed they came from the same source. 

I recalled that a prehistoric rock quarry I discovered in 2022 produced that yellowish-orange orthoquartzite, so I drove there (Figure 2). The prehistoric rock quarry is situated along a major creek drainage. That creek is mostly dry today. As the crow flies, the rock quarry is approximately forty miles northeast of where Mr. Roth discovered the cache. I matched the yellowish-orange and moderate red orthoquartzite to projectile points one and two, and found a possible raw material match for the third projectile point (Figure 3). 

Figure 3 - The five projectile points alongside raw material found at the prehistoric rock quarry.  

When sourcing an artifact’s raw material, my philosophy is simple: start with the closest source possible. After all, the Rocky Mountain region had hundreds, if not thousands, of raw material sources during prehistoric times. Raw materials were widely available for prehistoric people crossing the Rocky Mountain region. Prehistoric people did not need to haul a lot of raw material around with them on their nomadic treks. That does not mean a High Plains artifact hunter like me does not find the occasional artifact made from Alibates agatized dolomite out of Texas or Knife River chalcedony out of North Dakota. I do. Iconic and desirable raw materials traveled.

The dusky red jasper from the fourth point is reminiscent of Bighorn chert out of the Phosphoria or Amsden formations in the Bighorn Mountains of northwest Wyoming. For it to end up along the South Platte River in Colorado would be a hundred-mile-plus jaunt. The prehistoric craftsperson could have visited the Bighorn Mountains or traded for the material from another tribe. Since that particular projectile point was morphologically similar to the other four points and undamaged like the others, I contended that the five points were made near the discovery site or at least near the prehistoric rock quarry. The other option for the dusky red jasper of the fourth projectile point was a localized Bighorn chert lookalike.

Figure 4 - May 5, 2025. Cobbles and
flintknapping debris detritus at 
prehistoric quarry two.

On May 5, 2025, I visited the same creek drainage where the prehistoric rock quarry lies. I wanted to find dusky red jasper. Approximately three miles downstream from the first prehistoric rock quarry, I discovered another sourcing area with orthoquartzite and colorful jasper (Figure 4). The hillside was littered with cobbles, corestones, and chipping debris made from orthoquartzite and, surprisingly, pieces of yellow, brown, and red jasper. While jasper was rare at the first prehistoric rock quarry, it was more plentiful at the second prehistoric rock quarry. Upon visual inspection, it gave me confidence that the source for the fourth point could be along that creek drainage.          

The raw material of the fifth point was the simplest for me to identify (Figure 5). Anyone who has hunted artifacts in northeastern Colorado, eastern Wyoming, or southwestern Nebraska can recognize the yellowish-brown material as chalcedony from the White River Group of Oligocene geological age. Numerous quarry sites along the High Plains yield that popular tool-making material. The most famous site is Flattop Butte in Logan County, Colorado (Branney 2018). Flattop Butte is located approximately one hundred miles northeast of the cache discovery.

Figure 5 - Projectile point number five made from chalcedony from the 
Oligocene-aged White River Group on the High Plains. 
 

Projectile Point Type  

Harvey Mackey once said, "First impressions are lasting impressions." My first impression of the cache was that the points were from a projectile point type called Lovell Constricted, also known as Lovell or Fishtail points. Paleoindians made Lovell points in the Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic prehistoric periods. 

From 1962 to 1964, archaeologist Wilfred M. Husted (1969) excavated rock shelter sites east of Mummy Cave in the Bighorn Canyon of Wyoming and Montana. The sites were in jeopardy of imminent flooding due to the construction of Yellowtail Dam. Husted discovered two new projectile point types in three closely spaced rock shelters: Sorenson, Mangus, and Bottleneck Cave. He christened the new projectile point types Lovell Constricted and Pryor Stemmed.

Figure 6 - Lovell Constricted 
projectile points from the type site.
Husted (1969:46)  

Husted recovered Lovell Constricted projectile points stratigraphically below Pryor Stemmed projectile points, indicating that Lovell Constricted points were older than Pryor Stemmed points at those rock shelters. The geologic strata holding the Lovell projectile points yielded a radiocarbon date of around 8,000 years or slightly older, or around 8,800 to 8,900 in calendar years (Kornfeld et al. 2010:36). 

Figure 6 shows a drawing of the original Lovell Constricted type points that Husted et al. excavated in Bottleneck Cave (Husted 1969:46). Note the similarities between the complete point on the left in Figure 6 and the five projectile points in the cache. 

Husted (1969:12) described the Lovell Constricted projectile point type as follows:

“Medium to large in size with a concave base and a definite constriction of the lateral edges slightly distal to the base. The lateral edges above the constriction usually are smoothly convex. Basal edges vary from shallowly to moderately concave. Flaking is crudely parallel oblique with the flake scars extending downward to the right. Lateral edges are ground smooth from the base forward for up to one-half of the length of the points. Cross sections are lenticular.”

Husted (1969:83) hypothesized that when Agate Basin people arrived in the Rocky Mountain region, they displaced the people making and using fluted points. Based on his work in the Bighorn Canyon, he suggested that after the Agate Basin people arrived, they split into at least three branches: Mountain, Plains, and West. Husted (1969:87) suggested that the presence of obliquely flaked, lanceolate-shaped projectile points on the open plains represented an expansion of the Mountain branch before the Altithermal climate event made the open plains practically uninhabitable. I find Lovell and other oblique parallel flaked points on the open plains, so I can vouch for those people's presence. 

George Frison expanded on Husted's work in the Bighorn Basin and defined a subsistence strategy called the Foothill/Mountain Paleoindian Complex, in which he included Lovell Constricted artifacts. Frison surmised that around 10,000 years ago, two distinct Paleoindian subsistence patterns were existing on the High Plains: one subsistence pattern on the open plains where the hunter and gatherers survived mostly on bison, and a second subsistence pattern along the foothills and mountains where the inhabitants relied more on an archaic existence with mountain sheep as their main nourishment (Frison 1991:67; Kornfeld 2013:51). 

Figure 7 - Projectile point number one from the cache. The red arrows show  
oblique parallel flakes and the flaking direction along the left-hand edge.   

Figure 7 is a photograph of the first projectile point in the cache. It possessed all of the Lovell Constricted characteristics defined within Husted’s original description except stem grinding. During my analysis, I noticed something different about the five projectile points in the cache. The left-hand edges of the five projectile points exhibit oblique parallel flaking (red arrows), while the right-hand edges show collateral flaking. 

The oblique parallel flakes along the left-hand edge of the first projectile point were slanted at an obtuse angle to the long axis of the point. Oblique parallel flakes were usually uniform in size, shape, and regularity. Along the right-hand edge of the first projectile point, the craftsperson used collateral flakes that were at right angles to the long axis of the point. Collateral flakes were mostly uniform in size and regularity. That unique knapping strategy on all five points provided me with circumstantial evidence that the same individual crafted them all.  

The only feature from Husted's original description missing from all five points in the cache was stem grinding in the hafting region above the bases of the projectile points. If the craftsperson ground the stem edges on the five points, he or she did it lightly. Most experienced people contend that Paleoindians dulled the stem edges in the hafting area of projectile points to ensure sharp edges did not cut or fray the deer or bison sinew used to bind the stone projectile point to a spear or dart shaft. While that was a common Paleoindian practice, not all Paleoindians did it. My collection has many examples of diagnostic Paleoindian points with only light or no stem grinding.

 

Figure 8 - Projectile point number four demonstrates oblique parallel flaking 
on the left-hand edge and collateral flaking on the right-hand edge.
That is a common thread between the cache's five projectile points.   

Projectile point four in Figure 8 is another example showing the common thread that ties all five projectile points to the same craftsperson: oblique parallel flaking along the left-hand edge and collateral flaking along the right-hand edge.

The McKean Lanceolate Projectile Point Type 

The only other possibility of a projectile point type for the cache is McKean Lanceolate, a Middle Archaic lanceolate-shaped projectile point. McKean Lanceolate points had convex blade edges that were narrower at the base than in the middle. The flintknappers normally indented the proximal ends of McKean Lanceolate points, sometimes so deeply that it appeared to be a notch. The flintknappers normally did not grind or polish the stem edges, something that Paleoindian and Early Archaic knappers often did.

Figure 9 - McKean Lanceolate points from the author's collection.

In outline, McKean Lanceolate points looked similar to earlier point types, such as Lovell Constricted, but morphologically, they could not be more different (Figure 9). While an exceptional McKean Lanceolate point might show decent workmanship, most were not made all that well. Many McKean Lanceolate points were asymmetrical with random flaking patterns. Workmanship was a lower priority for Middle Archaic flintknappers than their earlier counterparts in Paleoindian and Early Archaic times. Perhaps Middle Archaic flintknappers realized that knapping overkill and a higher workmanship standard did not necessarily translate to better hunting success.

As a sidenote, Husted and Edgar (2002:119) proposed that Lovell Constricted projectile point technology evolved from older Angostura projectile point technology. Once the Lovell Constricted projectile point technology phased out, what was the new technology? Based on similar morphology and features, it seems logical to assume that McKean technology evolved from Lovell (and Pryor Stemmed) technology. But, not so fast. According to the archaeological record, there was a two-to-three-thousand-year-long gap between when Lovell technology phased out and McKean technology phased in (Branney 2016). The two technologies existed on opposite sides of a period of relative warmth during the middle of the Holocene called the Altithermal. Lovell Constricted technology came before the Altithermal, while McKean technology came at the tail end of the Altithermal. So what happened in between? That is a story for a different day.  

Conclusions  

I labeled this section "conclusions," even though I only present "my opinions and claims." Determining raw material sources via visual inspection with rock sample comparisons is tricky business. And projectile point typology can be quite subjective, especially on uniquely crafted projectile points with few diagnostic features. If I find a Clovis or a Folsom on the ground, I know what it is, but the projectile points in the cache above are not so definitive. Opinions on the projectile point type for projectile points without specific diagnostic features can create debates, with sometimes no definitive conclusion drawn from it.

1) I am confident in the raw material source for projectile points one, two, and five. I am comfortable with the raw material sources for three and four. I believe the raw material sources for projectile points one, two, three, and four were those prehistoric rock quarries along that specific creek drainage, approximately forty to fifty miles northeast of the cache's discovery location. There is an offhand chance that the raw material for projectile point four was Bighorn chert, but I doubt it. On May 13th, 2025, I returned to the prehistoric rock quarries and found a match for the red jasper (Figure 10 below). 

2) I am confident that the cache of five projectile points originated in the Late Paleoindian or Early Archaic time frame, specifically Frison's previously mentioned Foothill-Mountain Paleoindian Complex.    

3)  I contend that one individual made all five projectile points based on similar forms and technology, with a unique and individualistic twist of using oblique parallel flaking on one edge and collateral flaking on the other. 

4)  I do not believe the craftsperson ever had a chance to use the five projectile points based on the needle-like tips and lack of stem grinding.  

Figure 10 - Projectile point four with red jasper 
samples and an end scraper from the
prehistoric rock quarry. 

References Cited  

Branney, John Bradford. 2018. Flattop Chalcedony Along the Shadows on the Trail. Academia.

Branney, John Bradford. 2016. Lovell Constricted (Fishtail) Projectile Point Type. Academia.  

Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press. New York.

Husted, Wilfred M. 1969. Bighorn Canyon Archeology. Reprints in Anthropology, Volume 43.

Husted, Wilfred M, and Robert Edgar. 2002. The Archaeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: An Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers.

Kornfeld, Marcel. 2013. The First Rocky Mountaineers - Coloradans Before Colorado. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.  

Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson. 2010. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Third Edition. Left Coast Press, Inc. Walnut Creek.    

About the Author

John Bradford Branney is a geologist, prehistorian, and author who developed a passion for archaeology around the same time he learned to walk. Branney grew up in a small town in Wyoming, where his family had two and a half channels on television, and family weekend outings consisted of hunting, fishing, and artifact hunting.

Branney has written thirteen books and over one hundred papers and articles on archaeology, geology, and life. He holds a B.S. in geology from the University of Wyoming and an M.B.A. in finance from the University of Colorado.